Sunday, October 14, 2012


With election season in gear and the general election fast approaching, I figured it would be good to talk about my political views for a bit.  You see, though the blog’s purpose is intended to be a catalogue of a writer’s life and how a person should go about being successful while I try to become successful myself, I eventually hope that I can just spout off my opinions and have a wide following anyway because I will, indeed, already be successful and have some fans.  Here’s a test run of sorts.

First, let me say, as I probably have before, that in my personal life I am an anarchist.  I am an individualist through and through: I believe that the only way to fully connect with God and to fully become who we are created to be, or at least who we can be, is by digging deep within ourselves and seeking out who we are without any reliance on others or outside influence of any kind; a government, or any community, not only puts restrictions on our lives and expects certain things of us (as Foucault would say, societies naturally “police” themselves into conformity) but they also make themselves needed, and thus we depend on them.  Realistically I know I’d die rather quickly without a government to protect me.  Still, since I believe I must seek God and my created being purely to approach the divinity, or greatness, that God intends for all of us, or that we humans are just naturally born for, then I at least try to live separate from government and communities.

Maybe because my father has been involved in politics as long as I can remember, but I have grown up with a political mind.  I’ve been elected to positions of responsibility at every institution I’ve been at and as much as I may have complained about it, I have absolutely reveled in political thrill.  Doing my best to improve my community while dealing with “the human factor” really gets me off.  At the end of the day, I realize that total anarchy would only work in an ideal world.  As much as I am an idealist I must also live in the real world until the day everyone agrees with my ideals—surely that will happen sometime—and we can get on with a better life.  So, I do have political opinions and write about it often, or will write about it often, and have an opinion on most candidates up for election.

Since in my personal life I am an anarchist you might guess that I’m a libertarian.  I’m not.  Like Ron Paul I acknowledge the real world and see that no one will get much done in this country unless you are a Republican or Democrat: as such, I am a Ron Paul type of Republican; a “true” Republican, as I like to say.  In this upcoming election, however, I will be voting for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, or no one, because the Green Party, as far as I’m concerned, is the least political party of all of them and is direly needed in our world today.  For the same reason, I’ll be voting for Scott Brown for Senator of Massachusetts because he is not a party man.  Yes, Brown is a Republican, but he’s the second-most bi-partisan politician in the entire country and cares much more about this country and the citizens of this country than the party, unlike Elizabeth Warren who is clearly a privileged, well-to-do, look-at-me party girl. 

Really, I no longer like voting for the big elections.  At first my anarchist views convinced me not to vote at all, but then, as I said, I realized that is dumb.  My more realistic political views, though, brought me to almost the same conclusion.  You see, “politics” does not refer to big shots running for president or Congress.  It carries that connotation now, sure, but politics’ original definition is a people coming together for the city, from the Latin.  Much like how “Liturgy,” for all you church folk, means “work of the people,” from the Greek.  Any time I see a candidate who still adheres to the original definition of politics, I will vote for them.  More importantly, though, the definition implies that politics should be something that we all do all the time.  Politics is not only done on election day.  Since we have come to think that more and more, I’m not surprised why we have such a low opinion of our representatives: we aren’t doing our share.  I don’t care much about voting or election results, then, because the lions’ share of politics should be done all-year round rather than on a couple of days in the year.

Politics, really, should be more local than we often think of it now.  We should be working for the good of the city more than the good of the country.  Not that the country isn’t important, but seriously folks, local politics affects our daily life far more than federal politics.  Take taxes for example.  There are federal taxes, yes; but you should care much more about the state taxes that hit a person the hardest.  Or the city taxes.  Boston, for instance, has a super-high restaurant and hotel tax that affects locals and tourists, and tourism of course affects locals because less tourism means less money.  Yet I don’t know when the last time I heard anyone care about anything other than what the President might do with taxes.  And so often the individual or community can have a larger impact than they give themselves credit for.  Want a park built in your town?  Do it!  Wish your representatives would care more about human trafficking?  Tell them!  Often! 

We’ve grown far too apathetic.  All we like to do is complain and complain, without realizing that we can do a lot more than we’re doing.  Instead we want to feel like we aren’t responsible but “those fancy politicians” are.  Well, I’m a politician, too, and so are you.  If we think our country, state, or town is failing us, then we are failing, too.

No comments:

Post a Comment